Assets were identified through either the desktop study or asset identification workshops.

Asset identification workshops were held in Carnarvon and at Cobra Station in the Gascoyne during November, 2012, attended by a total of 21 participants. Many stakeholder groups were invited to join in; those represented included pastoralists, volunteer groups, landcare groups, non-government organisations, traditional owner groups, local governments and state government agencies.

As with all the other workshops, Steps 1 and 2 of the INFFER™ process were used to identify and then filter assets. Filtering involved assessing assets against a set of criteria to determine their relative levels of significance and threat, whether meaningful goals could be set, the current technical feasibility of addressing threats and likely levels of adoption (for both land managers and other organisations, such as government agencies).

The INFFER workshop in Carnarvon November 2012

Assets were identified through either the desktop study or asset identification workshops.

Asset identification workshops were held in Carnarvon and at Cobra Station in the Gascoyne during November, 2012, attended by a total of 21 participants. Many stakeholder groups were invited to join in; those represented included pastoralists, volunteer groups, landcare groups, non-government organisations, traditional owner groups, local governments and state government agencies.

As with all the other workshops, Steps 1 and 2 of the INFFER™ process were used to identify and then filter assets. Filtering involved assessing assets against a set of criteria to determine their relative levels of significance and threat, whether meaningful goals could be set, the current technical feasibility of addressing threats and likely levels of adoption (for both land managers and other organisations, such as government agencies).

Of these, 9 met most or all of the filtering criteria, which indicates that they’re solid candidates for further investigation, and the possible development of projects. What this means is that these assets are of high significance and threat, that we have a strong likelihood of being able to address the threats at the scale required to make a real difference and that all the relevant partners who would need to come on board in a project are either already engaged or also see this asset as a priority, so would be easy to engage. This list of assets is called the 'prospective projects list'.

Other assets either need more research, in the case of questionable technical feasibility, or stronger partnerships with land managers and / or other organisations before they can realistically progress to the project development stage. However these assets stay on the list and projects to develop technology, build relationships and / or undertake extension may be implemented to address any knowledge gaps.

Assets scored as being of moderate significance and / or having a low level of threat were not always filtered at the workshops due to restrictions on time. If necessary, these assets may be filtered during the annual review process.

Assets can be nominated for inclusion on the asset register at any time, and will be filtered by a technical review panel at the annual review. Download nomination form (word) (pdf)